Traveling in Place

Francis' Unforgettable Footwashing Ceremony

For me, the most enduring image from Holy Week 2013 will be the new pope of the Catholic Church, the first to take the name Francis, washing feet on Maundy Thursday.  Not just the feet of fellow clergy.  Not just the feet of good practicing Catholics.  He washed the feet of prisoners.  Including women.                   Including a Muslim woman. 

With this one act of humility, Pope Francis has turned an important page in the history of Catholicism – and of all Christianity.

For those who may not know, it is a centuries-old tradition for the Pope – on the Thursday of Holy Week – to follow the example of Jesus, who washed the feet of his disciples on the night before his crucifixion.  Jesus’ act was shocking to his disciples, for he had assumed the posture of a common house-servant.  Peter actually tried to prevent Jesus from degrading himself with this menial task.  But Roman Catholic law has taken all the shock and surprise out of the gospel story by interpreting it in a very wooden, literalistic way.  The Pope may only wash the feet of men, since all of Jesus’ twelve disciples were men.  And the twelve men whose feet the Pope washes are always fellow members of the Catholic clergy, and usually men of great authority in the church hierarchy.  Furthermore, the ceremony always takes place in the opulent St. John’s Lateran basilica in Rome.

But not this year.  Pope Francis went to a prison – a juvenile detention facility – and chose twelve inmates, young people between the ages of 14 and 20, two of whom were female, and two of whom weren’t even Catholic.  “Help one another.  This is what Jesus teaches,” the Pope said to the inmates as he washed and kissed their feet.  “This is what I do, and I do it in my heart because it is my duty.  As a priest and bishop, I must be at your service.”

This surprising break with tradition has raised the hackles of plenty of traditionalists, but I suspect that in the long run, it will be remembered with fondness by future generations of Catholics.  Francis has scorned a tradition that was maintained more for its own sake than for the sake of Christ.  He has offended the Pharisees of his world by seeking communion with sinners.  He has declared in a simple ceremonial act that God’s love is wider and deeper than can be contained by any religious tradition.  It sounds exactly like something Jesus would do.

I don’t know what this unusual act of grace portends, but even if it leads to nothing else, it leaves an indelible mark of God’s love, not only on the lives of those twelve young people, but on the whole body of Christ, including grateful Protestants like me.

Copyright 2013 by J. Mark Lawson

Bracket Busters and Other Surprises

How’s your NCAA tourney bracket holding up?  In the first full round of 32 games, there were 11 upsets – games in which the lower seeded team won.  That’s not surprising.  It happens every year – which is what makes watching this tournament so much fun.  But as far as I know, nobody has yet developed a truly reliable way to predict which teams will outperform the expectations of the selection committee.

This year, I took the average of two reputable computer models – one developed by a national sports network, the other by a highly regarded statistics geek – and used the results to fill out my brackets.  I got 20 out of 32 correct.  I would have done one better if I had simply picked all the higher seeded teams to win.

Computer models cannot account for the intangible human factors that have a lot to do with the outcome of the games.  How do you measure the emotional and mental state of the players?  Computers cannot possibly know in real time the level of adrenaline pumping through these young men, or how many endorphins are released in their bodies.  In short, computers cannot measure spirit, because there is nothing constant about it.  You don’t know the spiritual state of a basketball team until they get on the court.

That intangible quality we call “spirit” is a reflection of the Spirit of God.  In fact, the term “holy spirit,” before it was capitalized and identified as the third person of the Trinity, referred to the spiritual nature of human beings – our ability to respond to God.  And God’s Spirit is, like human spirit, unpredictable.  Jesus compared the Spirit to the wind, saying to Nicodemus, “You do not know where it comes from or where it goes” (John 3:8).  The Holy Spirit surprised the disciples of

Always Enough, Always Abundance

It hasn’t been much of a winter by our standards (we’re around 20 inches below normal in snowfall), but it’s been stubborn.  Here in the final week before the Spring Equinox, temperatures have been in the 20’s and low 30’s, and this morning, my neighborhood awoke to about six inches of heavy wet snow to be shoveled out of our driveways.

Folks in our part of the world have also been plagued with a lot of sickness.  The flu season got an early start last fall, and the viruses we might normally call “head-colds” seem unusually vicious.  I’ve been struggling with a combination of laryngitis, a persistent cough, and a sinus infection for nearly a month.  I’m on my second round of antibiotics, hoping to be in reasonably good health in time for Holy Week services.

For this reason, I haven’t had any trouble settling into the season of Lent.  My compromised physical condition serves to remind me of my mortality and my limitations.  It has also reminded me of the abundance of God’s provision. 

Here’s what I mean.  Of all the symptoms this winter virus has given me, none is more concerning than the loss of my voice.  So much of my life – preaching, teaching, and other forms of public speaking – involves heavy use of my vocal chords.  Being able to speak clearly is also important for counseling and visiting.  One morning last week, my voice disappeared completely.  Thankfully, it was not on a Sunday or a day when I was scheduled to teach a class.  I had enough time to rest my vocal chords, gargle with salt water, and drink lots of tea with lemon and honey.  Two mornings later, on Sunday, I still didn’t have my full voice, but I had enough to project and be heard.  I was actually amazed at how well I could preach under the circumstances, and realized what an abundance of voice I usually have.  (I can hear some of my parishioners chuckling.)  I don’t need all of it.  I can make use of it all when I have it, but these past few weeks, I’ve been grateful just to have enough.

"The Bible" - Episode 2

I was only able to watch the last half of episode two of “The Bible” on the History Channel last night.  This series has already developed quite a fan base, attracting 14 million viewers in each of its first two weeks.

In order to give “The Bible” a chance, you have allow the writers lots of leeway to pick and choose which stories they are going to highlight, because ten hours is not much time to depict the entire sweep of the biblical narrative.   This is why each episode begins with a disclaimer that the dramatization seeks to maintain the spirit of the Scriptures.  Regular readers will recall that my reaction to Episode One was mixed.  The liberties taken with the stories from Genesis and Exodus did not, in my judgment, always maintain the spirit of the text, and to some extent actually obscured its meaning.  I was more impressed with what I saw of last night’s episode, which did a decent job with the stories of Israel’s first two kings, Saul and David.  Both were correctly characterized as tragic heroes.  Saul came across as well-meaning but insecure.  He let jealousy of his young soldier David cloud his good judgment.  David, on the other hand, was portrayed as a just and God-fearing warrior loved by the people.  But he let his power mislead him into believing that he lived above God’s law.

The movie focused on David’s relationship with Bathsheba – a married woman whom the King impregnated – and David’s subsequent plot to have Bathsheba’s husband Uriah killed in order to cover up his crime.  I was grateful to see that Bathsheba was portrayed as a victim rather than as a temptress.  The Hebrew Scriptures are brutally honest about the deep character flaws of Israel’s early leaders, including David, who was revered as the greatest of their kings.  Subsequent tradition, however, has tended to smooth out David’s rough edges.  When his story was retold in 1 Chronicles, all references to David forcing himself on Bathsheba were removed.  And when I learned this story in Sunday School as a youngster, the teacher (no doubt reflecting what she had learned) implied that poor David was the victim of Bathsheba’s sexual advances.

Unfortunately (to my mind) the movie did not follow through with its initial characterization of Bathsheba.  By the end of the episode, she, David, and their little boy Solomon looked like a happy nuclear family.  Bathsheba seemed pleased to be with David, who appeared to be completely devoted to her.  Yet, the Bible tells us that David had many wives and concubines.  There is no reason to believe that he had any special relationship to Bathsheba.  Nor is there any reason to suppose that she did not live out her life in grief over losing Uriah and shame for having carried another man’s child against her will.

As in the cases of the Genesis and Exodus stories featured last week, this portion of scripture begs for more thorough exploration.  The interlocking stories of Samuel, Saul, and David are so rich with irony, intrigue, and study of human behavior that any effort to reduce them to a tidy script is costly.  Still, last night’s dramatization provides plenty of fodder for good discussion about how human foibles sometimes detract from, but never ruin, God’s larger plans.   

Copyright 2013 by J. Mark Lawson

Immigration Reform This Year?

An impressive assembly of religious leaders gathered at the White House on Friday to discuss with the president how to accomplish comprehensive immigration reform this year.  The leaders included several prominent evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Moslems.  As I have noted in previous posts, this is perhaps the single issue facing the United States over which there is wide consensus among Christian leaders of all stripes as well as Jews and Moslems.

Immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented workers in our country is also favored by a majority of Americans.  It has been blocked, however, by Republican Congressmen who believe the only reform necessary is to close the borders and send all illegals back to their native countries.  This position may reflect the views of people in their districts, but it has damaged the Republican brand nationally, and party leaders know it.  That’s why supporters of immigration reform believe they have their best opportunity ever to bring justice to these millions who are slaving away at agricultural and service jobs that Americans don’t want to do, yet have no legal protections or civil rights.

The folks who met at the White House yesterday understand the politics of this issue, but for them, immigration reform is not a political issue.  It is an issue of simple justice that is demanded by the Scriptures.  The Bible commands God’s people to advocate for the “strangers in the land,” rather than exploit them, discriminate against them, or throw them out.  This was one of the primary ways that the nation Israel was to distinguish itself in the world.  Jesus promoted the same principle by including “strangers” (i.e. illegal aliens) among “the least of these, my brothers.”  “Welcoming the stranger,” or “hospitality” became one of the marks of the early church, just as it had been for the nation Israel upon settling the Promised Land. 

"The Bible" - Episode I

Last night, I watched the first installment of the History Channel’s special series, “The Bible,” produced by Mark Burnett, who has already brought us two blockbuster reality shows, “Survivor” and “The Voice.”  Burnett is married to Roma Downey, star of “Touched By An Angel.”  The two of them collaborated closely on this project.  I watched partly out of curiosity, and partly because I knew people would be asking me this week what I thought of it.  So here’s my spot review.

First, let’s stipulate that reducing the entire Bible to a ten-hour miniseries requires a lot of selectivity.  I knew from the outset that the writers and producers would have to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to highlight.  (For that reason, the rather presumptuous title for the series, “The Bible,” isn’t really accurate.  It’s more like “And Extremely Brief Introduction to the Biblical Narrative.”  But no TV network is going to buy that title.)  I have to say, I think they made the right choices in focusing on Noah, Abraham, and Moses for the first episode.  These are the three figures most central to the covenantal history of the Hebrew Scriptures.  Oddly enough, however, dramatic depiction of their lives had little to do with the covenants themselves. 

We never saw Noah and his family leave the ark and start life again, so we never were introduced to the universal covenant God made with Noah.  (It was only subtlety suggested by the appearance of a rainbow over the waters.)  The story of Abraham climaxed with his near-sacrifice of Isaac.  (I thought this part of the story was handled well.  The writing and acting were sensitive to the agony that Abraham, Isaac, and Sarah all must have felt.)  Once Isaac was spared, the narrator told us that Abraham had passed the test to become the father of a great nation.  This felt odd to me.  Hadn’t God already given him this role?  And hadn’t it already been secured by the birth of Isaac?  And why did Abraham need to prove himself to God in order to be the father of a nation, if all that meant was to be a biological ancestor?  With so little attention to the covenant God made with Abraham, it felt to me like Abraham’s story didn’t make a lot of sense.  If you already knew the whole story, of couse, you could fill in the blanks.  But if this was your introduction to the Bible, you might be scratching your head.